UOI vs. GANDIBA BEHERA

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION    CIVIL APPEAL NO.8497/2019)         (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13042 OF 2014) UNION OF INDIA & ORS.   ............. APPELLANTS      VERSUS GANDIBA BEHERA                   ..............RESPONDENT         WITH             CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8979/2014    CIVIL APPEAL NO.8498/2019         (Arising out of SLP(C)No.979/2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9886/2014 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8674/2015    CIVIL APPEAL NO..................../2019     (Arising out of SLP(C)  CC. Nos. 20557­20558/2015)          CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2825/2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5008/2016    CIVIL APPEAL NO.8499/2019  (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 16767/2016) 1 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8379/2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1580­1581/2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 109­110/2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10355/2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10801/2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9518­9520/2017 Special Leave Petition (C) (D) No. 13464/2018   Special Leave Petition (C)No. 16615/2018          Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3392/2019   CIVIL APPEAL NO.8500/2019           (arising out of SLP(C) No.32881/2018)   CIVIL APPEAL NO.8501/2019           (arising out of SLP(C) No.6544/2019)     Special Leave Petition (C) (D) 18007/2019                          J U D G M E N T  ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. Records reveal that service is not complete in   S.L.P. (C)   Diary   No.13464/2018,   S.L.P.(C)   No.16615/2018, 2 S.L.P.(C)No.3392/2019   and   S.L.P.(C)   Diary No.18007/2019.     Hence these maters are directed to be de­tagged from this batch of appeals. Let these matters be placed  before the appropriate   Bench  after  completion  of service. 2. Delay condoned and leave is granted in SLP (C) CC Nos. 20557­20558 of 2015 and  SLP (C) No.32881 of 2018.          Leave is also granted in rest of the petitions for Special Leave to Appeal.  3. All   these   appeals   have   reached   this   Court   from decisions   of   different   Benches   of   the   Central Administrative Tribunal and thereafter judgments of the High Courts on a common question of law. The dispute in these appeals is as to whether services rendered by the employees in the postal department in the capacity of Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) ought to be computed or not for the purpose of calculation of the qualifying service of 3 their pension after they got selected in regular posts in the said department. The respective High Courts, whose judgments are under appeal before us, have uniformly held   in   favour   of   the   GDSs   who   subsequently   were selected as regular employees of the postal department. The   original   applicants   were   not   found   eligible   for pension   as   their   services   fell   short   of   the   qualifying period.   The   minimum   service   period   in   regular employment in the said Department for being entitled to pension is contained in Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and it is 10 years. We shall refer to these Rules henceforth as the 1972 Rules. In all these appeals, service tenure of the respondents in regular posts fell marginally short of the said period of 10 years. Clause 49 (1) of the 1972 Rules stipulates :­  “In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before   completing   qualifying   service   of   ten years, the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated   at   the   rate   of   half   month’s 4 emoluments   for   every   completed   six   monthly period of qualifying service.” 4.   There have been separate Rules guiding the services of Gramin Dak Sevaks who are also referred to as extra­ departmental   agents   in   the   postal   department.     The present Rules which has been cited before us is titled Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011   (the   2011   Rules).   There   was   P&T   Extra Departmental Agents   (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964 which   prevailed   earlier   covering   the   same   field   before replaced   by   Gramin   Dak   Sevaks   (Conduct   and Employment) Rules, 2001 . These Rules ultimately gave way to the 2011 Rules. The GDSs have been identified in different abbreviated designations over the period of time, possibly   depending   on   the   nature   of   work   they   were engaged in.  These are EDMC, ED­Packer, Departmental runner, EDDA and GDS. The last of these designations 5 being the short form of Gramin Dak Sevaks is what they are known as at present.  5.   The lead case  which  has been  argued before  us arises   from   an   application   instituted   by   one   Gandiba Behera   registered   as   O.A.   No.   609/2010   before   the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench. The said applicant was selected through regular process as a GDS st in Balasore division of the State of Orissa on 1   April, th 1968. He continued to work in that capacity until 25 May, 1999, from which date, he was engaged in a Group ‘D’   post   in   regular   employment   through   the   proper selection process. This status as a Group “D” employee was   conferred   on   him   retrospectively,   by   way   of   a th memorandum issued by the authorities on 30  December th 1999.   He   attained   the   age   of   superannuation   on   30 June, 2008. His claim for pension was, however, denied on   the   ground   of   not   having   completed   10   years   of 6 minimum qualifying service in the Group ‘D’ post. The th Tribunal, by an order passed on 6   July, 2011, upheld the   applicant’s   plea   for   having   part   of   his   service rendered in the capacity of GDS computed for meeting the requirement of qualifying service, relying on an earlier decision of the Tribunal delivered in O.A. No. 310 of 2010 (Sri   Gouranga   Ch.   Sahoo   Vs.   Union   of   India   and Others ). The Tribunal held and directed in the case of Gandiba Behera:­ “It is not the case of the Respondents that the above order of this Tribunal has meanwhile been reviewed or reversed by any higher court.   In view  of the above, I find no justifiable reason to deviate   from   the   view   already   taken   by   this Tribunal   in   the   case   of   Gouranga   Ch.   Sahoo (supra).     Hence     the   respondents   are   hereby directed to bring such of the shortfall period of service from the ED employment of the applicant to count for the purpose of minimum period of ten   years   qualifying   service   and   accordingly sanction and  pay  the pension and  pensionary benefits  to the   applicant  from  the  date  of  his retirement forthwith preferably within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt copy of this order; failing which, the applicant shall be entitled   to   6%   on   the   arrear   pension   and 7 pensionary dues from the date of his retirement till actual payment is made and the Respondents are free to recover the interest amount from the officer   who   would   be   found   responsible   for causing delay in payment.”                   rd 6.  The Orissa High Court by a judgment delivered on 3 January, 2014 in the writ petition brought by the Union of India and the postal authorities found no reason to interfere   with   the   Tribunal’s   order.     The   High   Court directed compliance of the said order of the Tribunal, mainly   relying   on   an   earlier   judgment   of   the   Court th delivered on 6  December, 2011 in W.P. (C) No. 11665 of 2011. 7.  In rest of the appeals, the factual disputes are similar in nature. Points of law involved are also near­identical. For these reasons, we do not consider it necessary to individually deal with each of these cases. We, however, give   below   the   key   factual   features   of   the   individual appeals in a tabular form :­ 8

9

10

11

8.   Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of  Gandiba Behera  (supra) affirming the Tribunal’s order mainly on the ground that service undertaken as GDS could not be equated with regular service. Service of a GDS carries lower working hours (between 3­5 hours). An incumbent engaged as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) is also entitled to pursue any other vocation simultaneously. It has also 12 been highlighted on behalf of the appellants that services of Gramin Dak Sevaks are regulated by a different set of rules and Court ought not to direct the administration or executive authorities in the capacity of employer to create an   altogether   new  service   Rule  for   a   particular   set   of employees.  9. In the case of  Superintendent of Post Offices and   , it was laid Others v. P.K. Rajamma [(1977) 3 SCC 94] down that Extra­Departmental Agents connected with the postal   departments   held   civil   posts.   That   finding   was given while dealing with applicability of Article 311 of the Constitution   in   relation   to   dismissal   orders   passed against the Extra­Departmental Agents. In   the   case   of ,   this Chet   Ram   vs.   Jit   Singh   [(2008)   14   SCC   427] Court examined the question as to whether a GDS is a government   servant   or   not.   This   issue   came   up   for consideration before this Court in a dispute concerning 13 eligibility   of   a   GDS   to   become   a   member   of   Nagar Panchayat   in   terms   of   the   Punjab   State   Election Commission Act, 1994. The opinion of the Court was that such   agents   were   government   servants   holding   civil posts. The Constitution Bench judgment in the case of D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC 305]   was   also   cited   on   behalf   of   the   respondents   in support   of   their   stand   that   there   could   be   no discrimination between two sets of pensioners. 10. A   set   of   GDSs   who   stood   absorbed   as   Group   ‘D’ employees   had   approached   this   Court   invoking   the jurisdiction   of   the   Court   under   Article   32   of   the Constitution of India seeking benefits akin to the ones which   form   the   subject­matter   of   these   appeals.   That petition   was   registered   as   Writ   Petition   (Civil)   No. 17/2009.   The   Rule   involved   in   that   writ   petition   was Department   of   Posts,   (Multi­Tasking   Staff) 14 Recruitment Rules, 2010 . There was specific provision in the said Rules for declaring GDSs as holders of civil posts but they were outside regular civil service. The said th writ petition was disposed of by an order passed on 9 December,   2014   giving   the   writ   petitioners   liberty   to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Subsequently, three applications were instituted   before   the   Principal   Bench   of   the   Tribunal. These were registered as O.A. Nos. 749/2015, 3540/2015 and   O.A.   No.   613/2015.   The   applications   of   the individual   GDSs   were   allowed   by   the   Tribunal.   The th decision in that regard was  delivered on 17  November 2016 ( Vinod Kumar Saxena & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors .) and the Tribunal directed :­ “(a)   For   all   Gramin   Dak   Sevaks,   who   have   been absorbed as regular Group ‘D’ staff, the period spent as Gramin Dak Sevak will be counted in toto for the purpose of pensionary benefits. (b) Pension will be granted under the provisions of CCS   (Pension)   Rules,   1972   to   all   Gramin   Dak 15 Sevaks, who retire as Gramin Dak Sevak without absorption as regular Group ‘D’ staff, but the period to be  counted  for  the  purpose of   pension will be th 5/8  of the period spent as Gramin Dak Sevak. Rule 6 will accordingly be amended. (c)   The   Gramin   Dak   Sevaks   (Conduct   and Engagement) Rules, 2011 are held to be valid except Rule 6, as stated above.                   (d) The claim of Gramin Dak Sevaks for parity with regular   employees   regarding   pay   and   allowances and other benefits available to regular employees, stands rejected.” 11.     A Bench of this Court presided over by one of us (Hon’ble Justice Ranjan Gogoi) has   examined a similar question   in   Civil   Appeal   Nos.   13675­13676   of   2015 (Union   of   India   &   Ors.   Vs.   The   Registrar   &   Anr.) th decided on 24  November, 2015. The scope of the dispute of that appeal would appear from the following passage of the judgment:­ “The   respondent   no.   2   viz.   N.S.   Poonusamy worked as an Extra Departmental Agent in the Postal Department from the year 1968 to 1993. He was regularized on 01.04.1993 and retired on 31.05.2002.   The   second   respondent   had completed nine years and two months of service but he was not granted any pension. Therefore, he   approached   the   learned   Tribunal   which 16 directed that a scheme be framed to give some benefit of service rendered by such employees as Extra Departmental Agents so as to enable them to earn the requisite period of qualifying service for pension i.e. 10 years. Aggrieved, the Union of India moved the High Court by way of a writ petition out of which these appeals have arisen.” 12.     Such direction was issued by the Tribunal, inter­ alia, on the basis of a circular of DoPT issued in the year 1991. The said circular provided that service rendered by an Extra Departmental Agent to the extent of 50% of the period thereof was to be added to the period of regular service for the purpose of entitlement to pension.  During pendency   of   the   appeal,   however,   the   Central Government had issued order granting regular pension to the Respondent No.2 in that appeal.                            13.     Allowing the appeal of the Union of India, it was held by this Court in that case:­ “The   appellant­Union   of   India   has   filed   an additional affidavit on 26.10.2015 stating inter alia that the Extra Departmental Agents covered by the DOP&T   Circular,   1991,   are   full   time   casual 17 employees,   whereas   the   second   respondent   is   a part   time   casual  employee   and   under   the   Rules governing his service framed in the year 1964 and amended in the years 2001 and 2011, employees like the respondent no. 2 are required to render between three to five hours of service every day. At the time of their appointment  they  are  required to  give  an undertaking to the effect that they have alternative   source   of   income   to   support   their families.   The   need   for   appointment   of   such employees, according to the Union of India, is to reach out to the addresses in far flung villages in the country where establishment and maintenance of a regular post office is not a viable proposition. Attention   is   also  drawn   to   the   provisions   of   the aforesaid Rules to the effect that such employees are not entitled to pension but would be entitled to ex­gratia gratuity and such of the payments as may be decided by the Government from time to time. Considering   the   fact   that   the   DOP&T   Circular, 1991,   which   form   the   basis   of   the   impugned direction of the learned Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court, pertained to full time casual employees to   which  category  the   second respondent does not   belong   and   the   provisions   of   the   Rules governing   the   conditions   of   service   of   the respondent as noted above, we are of the view that the impugned directions ought not to have been passed by the learned Tribunal and approved by the High Court. The matter pertains to policy and involved financial implications. That apart, in view of the facts placed before us, as noted above, we deem   it   proper   to   interfere   with   the   impugned directions   and   allow   these   appeals   filed   by   the Union of India. We, however, make it clear that the pension granted to the second respondent will not be affected by this order and the said respondent will   continue   to   enjoy   the   benefit   of   pension   in accordance with the provisions of law.” 18 14.  The respondents have also referred to clause 6 of the 2011 Rules which stipulates:­  “The Sevaks shall not be entitled to any pension. However,   they   shall   be   entitled   to   ex­gratia gratuity or any other payment as may be decided by the Government from time to time.” This particular Rule, making service of this category of employees non­pensionable however, has been struck down as unconstitutional by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi by a decision th delivered on 17   November, 2016. We are apprised in course of hearing of these appeals by the learned counsel for the Central Government that the said decision of the Tribunal has been challenged before the Delhi High Court by the Union of India by way of a Writ Petition, registered as W.P. (C) No. 832 of 2018. We are also informed that no effective order has as yet been passed by the Delhi High Court in the said writ petition. In the judgment giving rise 19 to Civil Appeal No. 109­110 of 2017, a similar provision of the 1964 Rules, being Clause 4 thereof has also been invalidated by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Though the fact that the service of GDS was not pensionable was one of the factors considered by this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Registrar & Anr.  (supra), that was not the main reason as to why the plea of the GDS was turned down by this Court.   We have reproduced above   the   relevant   passages   from   the   said   judgment containing   the   reasoning   for   allowing   the   appeal.   For adjudication of this set of appeals, thus the proceeding in which the Rule making service of GDS non­pensionable has   been   struck   down   is   not   of   much   relevance.   The controversy which we are dealing with in this judgment is whether the period of service rendered by a regular staff of the postal department while he was serving as GDS 20 would be computed for the purpose of determining his qualifying service to entitle him to get pension. 15.   The case of   D.S. Nakara   (supra)  has been relied upon on behalf of the respondents in support of their contention   that   there   cannot   be   any   artificial discrimination between two groups of pensioners. But the factual context of the case of   D.S. Nakara   (supra)     is different.   The discrimination which was challenged in that   case   related   to   two   sets   of   retired   Armed   Forces personnel   who   were   categorised   on   the   basis   of   their dates   of   retirement   and   one   set   had   better   terms   of pension. The decisions in the cases of   P.K. Rajamma (supra) and   (supra) are  for the proposition Chet Ram   that the respondents held civil posts as GDS and were government servants. But again ratio of these authorities cannot be applied to combine the services rendered by GDSs in posts guided by an altogether different service 21 rule with their services in regular employment. The other authority on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondents is a judgment of this Court delivered on rd 23  August, 2017 in the case of  Habib Khan v. State of Uttarakhand and Others [2018 (1) SLR 724 (SC)] . That case   arose   out   of   a   similar   dispute   involving   a   work­ charged   employee   of   the   State   of   Uttarakhand   who wanted   his   service   in   that   capacity   counted   for computing the qualifying service in regular post on the question   of   grant  of   pension.   This   judgment   was   also delivered by a two­Judge Bench of which Hon’ble Justice Ranjan Gogoi, before His Lordship assumed the post of Chief   Justice   of   India,   was   a   member.   The   aforesaid decision   followed   an   earlier   judgment   of   this   Court delivered in the case of  Punjab State Electricity Board and Another v. Nakara Singh and Another [(2010) 4 SCC 317] . The latter case arose out of similar claims of 22 work   charged   employees   who   were   engaged   in   the Irrigation and Power Department of the State of Punjab. The relevant provision of the Punjab Civil Services Rules allowed temporary or officiating service under the State Government   without   interruption   followed   by confirmation in the same or another post to be counted in full as qualifying service but excluded the period of service   in   work   charged   establishment.   The   aforesaid Rule was struck down by the Full­Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The decision of this Court in the case of   Nakara Singh   (supra)   was however founded on two circulars which permitted counting the period of service   rendered   by   a   work   charged   employee   in   the Central   Government   or   the   State   Government   for   the purpose   of   computing   pensionary   benefits   as   an employee   of   the   Punjab   State   Electricity   Board.   The respondents in these appeals also cannot be held to be 23 work­charged employees. The said category of employees, i.e. work­charged employees are engaged against specific work   and   their   pay   and   allowances   are   chargeable   to such work. But the scope of respondents’ work as GDS was part­time in nature. They had the  liberty to engage themselves   in   other   vocations,   though   the   work   they involved in carried an element of permanency.  The fact that they were engaged as GDSs which constituted civil posts   cannot   by   implication   treat   their   service   having whole­time   characteristic   to   be   an   extension   of   their service   rendered   in   the   capacity   of   GDSs.     The subsequent service was guided by different service Rules having   different   employment   characteristics.   The selection of an employee in regular post cannot also be pre­dated because of delay on the part of the authorities in holding the selection process.   We do not agree with the view of the High Court on this count in judgments 24 which form subject of appeal in Civil Appeal No. 5008 of 2016, SLP(C)No.16767 of 2016, Civil Appeal No. 8379 of 2016 and Civil Appeal No. 10801 of 2016. Service tenure of an employee in a particular post cannot be artificially extended in that manner in the absence of any specific legal provision.  16.         In   the   case   of   Union   of   India   &   Ors.   v   the Registrar & Anr.  (supra),  a plea similar to that made by the GDSs  for computation of service in that capacity was specifically  rejected.   There  is   no   specific   Rule  or   even administrative circular specifying computation of service period   rendered   as   GDS   to   fill   up   the   gap   in   the qualifying service requirement of the respondents in this set   of   appeals.   The   only   circular   on   which   the respondents laid stress on was the 1991 circular which was considered in the case of  Union of India & Ors. v. (supra). As the post of GDS did not Registrar & Anr.   25 constitute full­time employment, the benefits of the said circular cannot aid the respondents. Thus, there being a clear cut finding on similarly placed employees, we do not think we can apply the ratio of the judgment delivered in the   case   of   (supra)   in   support   of   the Habib   Khan   respondents’ plea. An unreported judgment of Karnataka th High Court delivered on 17   June, 2011 in the case of W.P. No. 81699/2011   Union of India and Others Vs. Dattappa   has   also   been   cited   on   behalf   of   the respondents. This judgment went in favour of counting the   period   of   service   as   extra­departmental   Agent   for qualifying service in relation to pension and the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court proceeded on the basis that for all intents and purpose, the employment was continuous in nature and it was not as if it was from one   service   to   another.   But,   this   view   has   not   been 26 accepted by this Court in the case of  Union of India & (supra). Ors. Vs. Registrar & Anr.  17.   It is also the respondents’ case that under Clause 49(3) of the 1972 Rules, if they had served more than 9 years and 3 months in regular employment, they would be entitled to have additional period computed for the purpose of qualifying service.  Said Rule 49(3) specifies: ­ “In  calculating   the   length  of   qualifying   service, fraction of a year equal to three months and above shall be treated as a completed one half­ year and reckoned as qualifying service.” Arguments were advanced that if within a period of one year an employee had served more than six months, then the total employment term ought to be computed as twice the period of one half year in two tranches and one year ought to be added to the service. But on a plain reading   of   the   said   Rule,   in   our   view   such   an interpretation cannot be given.   The Rule contemplates 27 one time benefit in case of service of more than 3 months in fraction of a year.  18.    Rule 88 of the 1972 Rules empowers the concerned ministry or the department to relax the operation of any Rule to prevent undue hardship in a particular case. This provision as embodied in Rule 88, provides:­ “88 . Power to relax. Where   any   Ministry   or   Department   of   the Government   is   satisfied   that   the   operation   of these   rules,   causes   undue   hardship   in   any particular case, that Ministry or Department, as the case may be, may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing, dispense with or relax the requirements   of   that   rule   to   such   extent   and subject to such exceptions and conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner: Provided   that   no   such   order   shall   be   made except with the concurrence   of the Department of Pension & Pensioner’s Welfare.” Exercise   of   power   under   the   said   Rules   however comes   within   the   decision   making   domain   of   the executive.   The   appellants’   case   has   been   that   if   such 28 power   to   relax   is   exercised   in   each   case   of   marginal shortfall in qualifying service, that would constitute an endless exercise. 19.     Having   regard   to   the   provisions   of   the   aforesaid Rules relating to qualifying service requirement, in our opinion the services rendered by the respondents as GDS or other Extra­Departmental Agents cannot be factored in for computing their qualifying services in regular posts under the postal department on the question of grant of pension. But we also find many of the respondents are missing pension on account of marginal shortfall in their regular service tenure. This should deserve sympathetic consideration for grant of pension. But we cannot trace our   power   or  jurisdiction  to   any   legal  principle  which could permit us to fill up the shortfall by importing into their service tenure, the period of work they rendered as GDS or its variants. At the same time, we also find that 29 in the case of  Union of India & Ors. v. The Registrar & (supra),   though   the   incumbent   therein   (being Anr.   respondent   no.2)   had   completed   nine   years   and   two months of service, the Union of India had passed orders granting him regular pension. This Court in the order th passed on 24  November 2015 had protected his pension though the appeal of Union of India was allowed. 20. For the reasons we have already discussed, we are of the opinion that the judgments under appeal cannot be sustained.   There is no provision under the law on the basis of which any period of the service rendered by the respondents in the capacity of GDS could be added to their   regular   tenure   in   the   postal   department   for   the purpose of fulfilling the period of qualifying service on the question of grant of pension. 21.  We are also of the opinion that the authorities ought to consider their cases for exercising the power to relax 30 the mandatory requirement of qualifying service under the 1972 Rules if they find the conditions contained in Rule 88 stand fulfilled in any of these cases.  We do not accept the stand of the appellants that just because that exercise would be prolonged, recourse to Rule 88 ought not to be taken. The said Rules is not number specific, and if undue hardship is caused to a large number of employees, all of their cases ought to be considered.  If in the cases of any of the respondents’ pension order has already been issued, the same shall not be disturbed, as has been directed in the case of  Union of India & Ors. v Registrar & Anr.   (supra).   We, accordingly allow these appeals   and   set   aside   the   judgments   under   appeal, subject to the following conditions:­ (i)    In the event the Central Government or the postal   department   has   already   issued   any order for pension to any of the respondents, then such pension should not be disturbed.  In 31 issuing   this   direction,   we   are   following   the course which was directed to be adopted by this Court in the case of  Union of India & Ors. v. Registrar & Anr. (supra). (ii)   In respect of the other respondents, who   have not been issued any order for pension, the concerned ministry may consider as to whether the   minimum   qualifying   service   Rule   can   be relaxed in their cases in terms of Rule 88 of the 1972 Rules. 22 Interim orders passed in these appeals, if any, shall . stand dissolved.   All connected applications shall stand disposed of. 23. There shall be no order as to costs.   ......................................... CJI   (Ranjan Gogoi)     ..........................................J                         (Deepak Gupta) ..............................…........J                     (Aniruddha Bose) New Delhi Dated: November  08, 2019. 32